Briefer Arguments

Issues raised by the respondents in the Motion to Lift TRO:

1. The TRO was issued without the required summary hearing.

2. Petitioner failed to show extreme urgency for the issuance of the TRO.
3. There is denial of due process against respondent Dr. Charisma S. Ututalum.

Petitioner’s arguments on the issues raised:

1. The issuance of the TRO without summary hearing is justified. Under Rule 58, the court,
upon issuance of 72 hour TRO, shall conduct summary hearing within 24 hours from the
issuance to determine whether or not such TRO will be extended for the period of 20 days.
At the time of issuance, this was not practicable. Firstly, the office address of the counsels of
the parties are in Zamboanga City, hence it was not practicable to notify them and conduct a
summary hearing within 24 hours. Secondly, the issuing judge is currently holding two salas,
one in Tawi-tawi and the other is where the present petition is filed. She is dividing her time
to entertain cases filed before these two salas. When the petitioner filed her petition
(Thursday) the judge was not there, she was on the other sala (Tawi-tawi) so she was able to
act on the petition after four (4) days and issued the TRO (Monday). Considering these, after
the petitioner posted a bond, she decided to issue instead a 20 day TRO and set the hearing
for the injunction proper on the 18th day of the effectivity of the said TRO so that the issues
which the parties should have raised and the court should have resolved within 24 hours as
required by the rule, may be properly raised, determined and resolve there altogether after
giving the parties ample time and opportunities.

2. The petition is sufficient in form and substance. The petition contains allegations and
attachments sufficient to establish extreme urgency which warrant the immediate issuance
of the TRO. It is extremely urgent to depose from the office someone who is not qualified,
specially a president of a state college. It is of extreme urgency to oust her because it is
readily apparent in the petition that she is not qualified and it is dangerous to allow a
disqualified individual to occupy a public office and perform acts (signing of contracts,
arrangement of staffing pattern, teaching load, laying-off employees) which may produce
adverse effects or injuries on those concerned in that office, in this case, the Sulu State
College community (Administrative personnel, faculty, students and parents). There is a
great likelihood of misadministration/mismanagement and the members of this community
will surely suffer great and irreparable injury. Therefore it is urgent.

3. There is no denial of due process. The court’s issuance of 20 day TRO was motivated by its
pure desire to conveniently, efficiently and orderly dispense justice. Under the
circumstances, to notify the parties and their counsels and to conduct a summary hearing
within 24 hours from issuance of TRO could make the case repetitious and more
complicated and confusing because the parties and their counsels might not be notified on
time and might not be able to appear due to distance, or if they could, they would not be
fully prepared for the hearing. Certainly, this is never the intendment of the drafters of the
Rules of Court. The Rules of Court were made for the orderly administration of justice.
When the rule is in conflict with the circumstances such that to follow one would eliminate
or violate the other, Courts must exercise judicial discretion. When under the circumstances,
 obeying the Rule would violate the purpose for which it was made, the inclination of the
court should be to abandon the niceties and technicalities of that rule and obey instead the
primary purpose, that is, the orderly administration of justice.

Additional Arguments:

In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court laid down three requisites to be complied with before
a Writ of Preliminary Injunction may be issued, to wit;

1. A present and unmistakable right to be protected;

2. The acts against which the injunction is directed violate such right;
3. A special and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages

As to the first requirement, the petitioner satisfies. The petitioner’s right is anchored on
Constitutional provision on education particularly Sections 1, 5 paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article XIV.
Petitioner is not filing this petition as one of the nominees for presidency but because she is a faculty
member at the time she filed her petition. Certainly, as a teacher together with the students, she has a
right to quality education and has interest to be protected because she will suffer injuries and damages
as a result of mismanagement/misadministration. Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution provides
that every citizen has a right to quality education, but surely that quality education will never be
achieved when the President of a State College is not qualified.

As to the second requirement, the petitioner also complies. Letting an unqualified person to
occupy and exercise a public function is dangerous and may produce adverse effects or injuries on those
concerned in that office, in this case, the Sulu State College community as a whole. Hence, the right of
the students to quality education that is protected under our constitution will be compromised as a
result of mismanagement/misadministration.

As to the third requisite, the petitioner satisfies. “The argument in the Second paragraph of the
first page of the document may be used.”